June 25, 2013

Who were the Cochranites?

In the latest of an ongoing series of exchanges with Luke Cooper, a young British revolutionary whose critique of “Leninism” I share, Paul Le Blanc referred to some fairly ancient history that will likely be obscure to most on the left, even those who have been following this debate and others like it for the past decade or so.

In trying to paint James P. Cannon, the father of American Trotskyism, as someone open to the kinds of broad left unity taking place in Britain today, Le Blanc refers to the “regroupment” period of the mid-50s which had Cannon sounding sweet and reasonable at a 1958 public meeting:

Socialists of different tendencies have begun to think of each other as comrades. Free discussion and fraternization, and sentiment for united action and regroupment of all the scattered forces, are the order of the day for us now everywhere. I say that’s a good day for us and for our cause – the cause of American socialism.

This is part of a delicate balancing act being undertaken by the International Socialists Organization. They recognize that lip-service must be paid to the powerful historical tides are moving in the direction of broad left unity but are loath to give up the sectarian framework that has worked so well for them in the past. When you can build up an organization of more than a thousand committed activists in a relatively brief period based on the party-building methodology of people like Tony Cliff, James P. Cannon, Ted Grant et al, you feel vindicated. There is of course a need to speak in terms of becoming part of a broader vanguard party down the road but until history comes knocking on your door, why give up on the “market share” approach that has worked so well in the past?

In trying to burnish the image of Cannon’s Socialist Workers Party, Le Blanc offers a disparaging portrait of Bert Cochran and Harry Braverman’s Socialist Union, which existed from 1954 until 1960:

I was not recruited … by the group around Bert Cochran that left the SWP in the 1950s but had disappeared by the early 1960s. All of these had important things to say, offered compelling insights, contained admirable people, made genuine contributions. But none of them survived as an organized force, with revolutionary perspectives intact and some credibility, capable of recruiting and helping to political train the person that I was in the 1960s and 1970s. The SWP did survive as such a force, and it was able to grow and play a very positive role before succumbing to the contradictions that I have analyzed elsewhere.

There is of course a problem with the whole concept of recruitment that probably eludes Paul Le Blanc. If you go back to the early 1900s in Czarist Russia, the Social Democracy did not go out and recruit people. It was instead an organic outgrowth of a pre-existing socialist movement that had not yet cohered into an organization. Lenin wrote “What is to be Done” in order to accelerate such a cohesion.

This business about the “Cochranites” not having the same shelf life as the SWP is something I have heard before, including a crasser version made by a former member of the SWP who is a fan of the ISO. This was his comment on my blog:

And where are the Cochranites now? As they say, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?”

Well, I suppose if the criterion is being “rich”, the Socialist Union was a loser. But I wouldn’t put much stock in longevity as a sign of wealth or health considering the fact that Daniel De Leon’s Socialist Labor Party has the SWP beat by a mile.

The interesting thing for me is how incapable Paul Le Blanc was in understanding what Cochran and Braverman were up to. They had broken completely with the “recruitment” model of the SWP and were committed to a genuine regroupment of the sort that Cannon only paid lip service to.

In 1955, the radical weekly Guardian newspaper approached the SWP with a proposal to run a “united socialist” ticket, a hallmark of the regroupment period that often focused on electoral campaigns that could unite the left. Cannon wrote a letter to SWP leader Murray Weiss revealing what he thought of the Guardian, a paper that probably had 5 times as many readers than the Militant in the 1960s:

The American Guardian Monthly Review outfit, as far as I know … does not object to the general ideology of Stalinism on any important point. They are willing to endorse everything from the Moscow Trials to the Second World War and the pacifist ballyhoo for co-existence, if only they are allowed to do it as an independent party… The great bulk of these dissident Stalinists are worn-out people, incurably corrupted by Stalinist ideology, who haven’t the slightest intention or capacity to do anything but grumble at the official CP and to demand a stagnant little pond of their own to splash in.

When I joined the SWP in 1967, they organized a class on party history that featured the key leaders on all the famous fights and maneuvers calculated to convince us raw “recruits” that we had hooked up with the smartest people on earth. I can’t remember who gave a class on regroupment but I am damned sure that this was the consensus in 1967: regroupment was designed to recruit some of the best of the disillusioned CP’ers to the “vanguard party”, a rescue operation in effect. The highest-profile ex-CP’er to join the party was Clifton DeBerry, an African-American who ran for president on the SWP ticket in 1964.

Unlike the SWP, the Cochranites took the project seriously and no distinction could be made between their private and public utterances. Bert Cochran uttered these words to a meeting of 800 people in Chicago in November 1956 and you can be damned sure he meant them:

What we have to ask ourselves, I think, is this: Is it possible now in the light of the dolorous experience of American radicalism, and the greater knowledge we possess today of the Russian experiment, is it possible to look at Russia from higher vantage ground, and from the viewpoint of our own American needs even if we have some differences in our precise appreciations? Can the Left free itself from unthinking idolatry and the whitewashing of Russian crimes against socialism; and, on the other extreme, from the embittered hostility which misses the epic movement of historic progress, and can see in the Soviet bloc only the anti-Christ of our time.

IN other words, I am making a plea for sanity, for more mature judgment, for deeper historical insight, for an end to Left bigotry and Babbittry, for a cease-fire in our own cold war, for an effort at cooperation, and where possible, reconciliation.

For those who are impressed with longevity, there’s not much that can be said about the Socialist Union that lasted half a decade. But it is important to remember that Karl Marx, the founder of our movement, was not always involved in building organizations. I urge you to look at an article on Democratic Centralism written by Joaquín Bustelo for Solidarity that might fault Marx as well for not being “rich” in the terms outlined above.

Now one very important thing to note about Marx and Engels’s conception of the Communist Party as a leading force in the working class struggle is that this did not in the slightest cause them to hesitate in dissolving the organized expression of that party, the Communist League, only a few weeks after having written those lines in the Manifesto, when a revolution broke out in Germany.

Engels explains it very straightforwardly in his article “On the History of the Communist League, “simply as a function of political tasks. The old propaganda league was not suitable for the new conditions of Germany in revolution, a newspaper was a much better political instrument, so they wound up the underground League and founded the daily Neue Rheinische Zeitung.

I want to conclude with a talk I presented on the Cochranites to a conference on American Trotskyism organized by Paul Le Blanc thirteen years ago. Although I was anxious to get out the word on a group I closely identified with and whose former members had become like family (particularly Cynthia Cochran who treated me like a son), there was a sense that my talk would fall on deaf ears. There was still a strong belief that “democratic centralism” was an organizational measure worth pursuing. Thank goodness we are in a new era.

The Cochran-Braverman Legacy

According to Al Hansen, who wrote the preface to “Speeches to the Party”, a mostly obscure collection of James P. Cannon’s anti-Cochranite rants from the late 1940s and early 1950s:

. . . Sol and Genora [Dollinger] expressed the following views. The party should not be trying to build branches, running election campaigns, or even trying to recruit members in this period. The country was facing the triumph of fascism and there wasn’t a damn thing we could do about it because of the conservatism of the workers and our party’s weakness. When fascism triumphed here, all known Trotskyists would be wiped out as had happened in Nazi Germany. Therefore the best thing that we could do as revolutionists was to spend as much time as we had writing down and printing our ideas, our program, and then hide this printed matter in attics, basements, etc., for future generations to discover.

So that’s the official version of the Cochranites: liquidationists panicked by McCarthyism. And then you mix this with Cannon’s crude sociological explanation of them as a privileged strata of the working class. These were UAW Joe Six-Packs tired of the class struggle and anxious to live the good life paid for by high union wages. When a raw recruit like me first heard about the Cochranites in a 1969 Frank Lovell lecture, I felt thankful that the good guys had won, just like they always did in the SWP. In revolutionary parties, as in politics in general, history is written by the victors.

In early 1970 I took an assignment to go up to Boston to fight against the Proletarian Orientation Tendency (POT). This workerist grouping around old timer Larry Trainor, included not only my friend Alan Wald then in Berkeley, but a number of party members my age. They numbered perhaps 5 to 10 percent of the SWP and YSA. The POT worried that the rapid influx of middle-class students would create alien class pressures on the proletarian party. The next thing you know we’d oppose the USSR’s invasion of Finland or something. I was never sure how I fit into all this because my father had been a truck-driver before he opened up a fruit store. As a computer programmer, I supposedly belonged to Ernest Mandel’s new working class. In any case, I never lost any sleep over this question.

The POT in Boston couldn’t wait for the rest of the party to wake up to the danger. They had begun to take jobs in hospitals and factories in order to transform themselves into workers. With its attention fixed on the factories, the Boston branch lagged behind the rest of the country in building the mass antiwar movement. Branch organizer Peter Camejo’s job was to destroy the Trainorites politically and reorient the branch toward the student movement. I was his one of his right-hand men in the faction fight.

As justification for this crackdown, the Cochranite heresy proved useful. In my remarks to the branch during the 1971 pre-convention discussion, I said that it was useless to take jobs in factories. After all, it had made no difference for the Cochranites. Even autoworkers were not above selling out the revolution.

Although the party apparatus was successful in destroying the POT, it turned around and adopted virtually its entire agenda only 7 years later. The “turn” toward industry was just another misguided attempt at colonization, not much more sophisticated than the one mounted by the Boston SDS Worker-Student Alliance in 1970 that had served as a model for the Boston branch.

Despite the turn, Peter Camejo remained a 1960s holdout. After spending time in Nicaragua witnessing a living revolution, he became convinced that the SWP was on a sectarian dead-end. He not only defended the 1960s orientation, he believed it necessary to work more closely with non-Trotskyist groups like the Puerto Rican Socialist Party. Basically, he was trying to work out a Cuban or Central American type orientation for the United States.

Questioning the “turn” got him thrown out of the party in 1980. That year I began wondering why the SWP was doing so little to organize protests against US intervention in Central America. Although I had been out of the party for two years, I read the Militant from cover to cover each week. If there was any deep concern with US imperialism’s designs in the region, I couldn’t see it. A chance encounter with Ray Markey, who was still in the party and who always seemed level-headed to me, prompted me to ask what was wrong the SWP. Had they turned into a workerist sect? He gave me a copy of Peter Camejo’s “Against Sectarianism” which said yes to that question. As I began reading it, I found myself in agreement with every word.

About 7 years ago J. Plant, who works with the excellent British journal “Revolutionary History,” raised a question on an Internet mailing list that led me to begin writing about party building questions. He asked people for their assessment of Trotskyism. I replied that Trotsky’s basic ideas on permanent revolution, fascism, the popular front, etc. remained sound. But we had to come to terms with the problem that his movement had a tendency to generate sectarian formations. I said that this was caused by a misreading of Lenin and the Bolsheviks and announced that I would write about these problems in some depth. So I wrote about the CP, the Trotskyists. and newer formations like the Cuban July 26th movement and the FSLN in Nicaragua. All of it is archived on the Marxism list website, along with links to material on the Cochranites.

I found myself questioning not only official versions of what it meant to build Marxist-Leninist parties, but the particular Cannonite version handed down in the SWP. Part of this re-investigation meant taking a new look at all of our various renegades. Since I was in a forgiving mood, I began handing out absolutions to everybody. Oehlerites, Shachtmanites, Cochranites–it didn’t matter. I no longer had any use for reading people out of the movement. Look where it had led.

At the time I had neither the motivation nor the resources to actually study what the Cochranites stood for in any great detail, especially since there was a paucity of documentation available to the general public. All that changed after Sol Dollinger showed up on a Marxism list I had launched in May of 1998. Over the past year or so, we have had discussions on the list about the legacy of the Trotskyist movement that have benefited from the insights of a living and breathing–and sometimes blunt–Cochranite. One of the first things we learned from Sol was that the charge of “privileged” Cochranite factory workers was absurd. He wrote:

Three decades later, I am amused by the explanations made by Frank Lovell that you heard as a new member of the SWP. He contended that the members of the auto faction had become embourgeoisified by high wages in the industry. My position as a Chevrolet worker is not much different than other auto worker members of the party. We rented in Flint and when I quit after seven years my wages were under five thousand dollars a year. When Genora’s father died of a heart attack in front of the Buick gate where he worked as a janitor, he left his four children $700 each. Genora rushed out to make a down payment on a house with a $3800 dollar mortgage with monthly payments of $35.

Keeping in mind that my criticisms of Trotskyism flow from a Cuban or Sandinista type perspective like Camejo’s, I found that Sol’s basic approach coincided with my own. That led me to look into the whole question of the Cochran legacy. Contrary to Al Hansen, this group did not liquidate itself in 1954. It made an audacious attempt to start a new Marxist left. Their organization was called the Socialist Union. Their journal the American Socialist began that year as well, only to cease publication at the end of 1959. Edited by Bert Cochran and Harry Braverman, it is not only one of the best Marxist journals ever published, it is also a guide to understanding the kind of revolutionary movement that we need today.

Over the past year or so, I have been scanning in articles from American Socialist, courtesy of Cynthia Cochran who lives here in NYC and making them available in electronic archives. Eventually I hope to have this published as an American Socialist Reader.

To start with, it does not make sense to speak of Cochran or Braverman in the same terms as CLR James or any other figure around whom disciples gathered. That being said, there is still a “Cochranite” approach to politics that revolved around overlapping concerns. Let’s take a look at them.

To begin with, the American Socialist rejected the “vanguard” model that James P. Cannon had promoted. Although the magazine never mentioned Cannon or the SWP after the first issue, there was no mistake that they were for a complete break with the sectarian model.

Unlike the Trotskyists, they believed that a genuine regroupment was necessary on the American left. I want to emphasize the word genuine because the SWP went through a regroupment period themselves in the late 1950s that can only be characterized as a fishing expedition to gain new members, particularly disaffected ex-CP’ers. Activists in the Socialist Union saw their work with other groups as a means to an end. They sought to build a broad-based socialist movement and not just another sect.

In October 1956 the Socialist Union organized a regroupment meeting in Chicago that drew 800 people. Besides Bert Cochran, the speakers included A.J. Muste of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Sidney Lens, a writer and trade union official. Cochran told the audience:

Practically since its inception, the American Socialist has declared that a regroupment was necessary on the American scene, that the old movements had knocked each other out, and what remained of them had either succumbed to the slough of sectarianism, or had outlived their usefulness as vehicles of American radicalism. At first we were a lone voice, but today this idea is accepted by many. Nevertheless, as a result of many private conferences and conversations that we have been engaged in over these past months, we are convinced that the regroupment and the setting up of something new will necessarily involve a more or less protracted process of discussion, debate, and re-examination of many of the Left’s premises and solutions, before the ground is sufficiently prepared for the next organizational ventures.

Not only was the American Socialist immersed in the regroupment process, it also explained the importance of similar efforts underway in Europe that they characterized as the unfolding of a “new left”. This term, by the way, is used frequently in the pages of American Socialist to describe not the sorry mess we ended up with in the 1960s but something more in the way of a new Marxist left. It is unfortunate that objective circumstances militated against the Socialist Union’s best efforts to make such a new movement possible.

For example, in 1958 the American Socialist covered developments in Great Britain around the journals New Reasoner, which included E.P. Thompson as an editor, and Universities and Left Review. They eventually merged and became New Left Review. Here is Cochran sizing up the New Reasoner:

The weakness of the New Reasoner appears to be that most of its writers are still unduly pre-occupied with the world from which they have so recently broken, as evidenced in the subject matter which claims their attention, the problems that continue to dominate their thoughts, and the people to whom they are primarily addressing their writings. Moreover, trying to continue to rest on the Communist tradition by restoring it to its original pre-Stalinist pristine purity strikes me as a quixotic venture. Communism is bound by historical associations of a quarter of a century that neither god nor man can eradicate. To try to restore Communism to the meaning that it possessed in 1917 or 1848 is like trying to take Christianity away from the Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist churches of today and restore it to the simple virtues of the Biblical Apostles. It is a subject matter for literary exercises. It has no use as a workable tradition for the Left in Britain, much less, in the United States.

The American Socialist also sought to ground itself in earlier radical traditions in the United States, before Bolshevik cloning became mandatory. This meant taking a fresh look at the Debs legacy. Not only did the editorial board of American Socialist include octogenarian George H. Shoaf, who had worked closely with Debs, it also published a special issue on the Socialist Party in which Cochran drew a contrast between Debs’ party and what had followed it:

PECULIARLY enough, the Communist movement that followed Debs, and became the mainstream of American radicalism in the thirties and forties, lost this trait all over again, and became too much of a Russian movement; not in the sense that most of its members were of Russian extraction (they were not), but because their thought was so largely concentrated on Russia. Their leaders uncritically tried to copy Russian patterns of behavior, and misconstrued socialist internationalism to mean loss of independence for one’s own party. A reawakened socialist movement will undoubtedly have to re-create much of the earlier Debs model in this respect.

The break with the SWP not only involved questions of the appropriateness of the ‘vanguard’ party-building model, it also challenged the sort of ‘catastrophism’ that marked the party’s post-WWII outlook. While Cannon predicted a new depression and working class radicalization, the Cochranites urged a more cautious and objective view of the American economy and society. As is obvious today, the Cochranite assessment was far more accurate.

Cochran’s co-editor Harry Braverman focused on the American economy’s strengths and weaknesses. In article after article, he examined the nature of the post-WWII prosperity. While first showing residual influences of the kind of ‘catastrophism’ found in the post-WWII SWP, he eventually found himself coming to terms with what would turn out to be the longest and deepest capitalist expansion in history. In a May 1958 article, written as a reply to British ex-Marxist John Strachey who believed capitalism had resolved its basic contradictions, Braverman openly and courageously dealt with the question of ‘immiseration’ which had been central to the concerns of 1930s radical movement:

All the above difficulties in Marxism obviously stem from the fact that the capitalist system has persisted, and restabilized itself repeatedly, over a much longer period than had been expected. The great expansion in labor productivity which has created such new and different conditions was not unexpected in the Marxian economic structure, a structure which, as no other before or since, focused on the technological revolutions which capitalism is forced to work continuously as a condition of its existence. What was unexpected was capitalism’s length of life and its ability to expand. Marx and the movement he shaped operated on the basis of imminent crisis. If he never gave thought to the kind of living standard inherent in a capitalism that would continue to revolutionize science and industry for another hundred years, that was because he thought he was dealing with a system that was rapidly approaching its Armageddon.

The capitalist expansion of the 1950s was not the only thing that was unexpected. It also saw the beginning of the automation revolution. In an effort to understand what was different from the 1930s, you could not ignore something this major. In October 1954, Cochran wrote:

Everyone has heard of ‘automation’ by now and knows it is a new giant stride in the elimination of human labor in production by the use of automatic machinery, electronic computers and feedback controls. Few factories are as yet built on complete ‘automation’ lines, which in its strict scientific definition describes electronic or magnetic-tape control of complete sequence operations. Partial use of the new technology, however, is already becoming common. In continuous-flow-process industries, such as petrochemicals, many plants are on the verge of complete automation. Fortune magazine analysts believe even more startling changes may come in the white collar field with the introduction of high speed ‘memory’ and computing machines such as ‘Univac’ or IBM’s No. 702.

So if Univac rather than Armageddon was on the agenda, what would be the best hope for social change? As we know, the civil rights movement was starting up. The American Socialist provided some of the best coverage of this new movement, including dispatches from Carl Braden and Albert Maund, the author of “The Big Boxcar” who is in his mid-80s now and living in New Orleans. The great civil rights attorney Conrad Lynn served on the editorial board. WEB DuBois was also an occasional contributor.

It also examined some of the social contradictions that would eventually give birth to the environmental movement. Reuben Borough, who had been the editor of Upton Sinclair’s EPIC (End Poverty in California) campaign in 1934, served on the editorial board of American Socialist as well. In September, 1957, long before the publication of Rachel Carsons “Silent Spring,” Borough began writing about the environment from a Marxist perspective.

The problem of the conversion of power from these various non-depletable sources has never been under sustained and organized inquiry in the United States. This is a job beyond the immediate capacities of the isolated laboratories of the private enterprisers—they cannot solve the problem in time. Public enterprise can and must solve it. The loyal citizen of the Earth Planet must marshal the political forces necessary to that end. The long and ruthless raid of Greed upon the basic wealth of Nature must be stopped. Loving care must take the place of the befoulment and destruction of man’s environment. This is the inescapable task and responsibility of the religion of conservation.

Let me conclude. There was no such thing as “Cochranism.” It neither added nor subtracted anything to Marxist thought. Instead the Cochranites represent one of the most advanced and sustained efforts to apply a classical Marxist analysis to American society in the mid 20th century. The fact that they failed to build a new Marxist left is not an indictment of their methodology nor their analyses. They were just ahead of their time. If a new Marxist left in the United States is to succeed today, it will be along the lines set down by Socialist Union. You can bet on that.

Solidarity represents an effort to move in the direction set down by the Cochranites. I would invite these comrades to study the archives of the American Socialist to see how an earlier generation confronted the task of building a non-sectarian socialist movement based on Marxist principles.

As Bert Cochran said to a gathering of the Socialist Union at its inception in May 1954:

We approach all these strata, however, in the spirit of Marx’s Communist Manifesto which proclaimed that the revolutionists had no interests separate and apart from the working class, that we are not a special sect, cult, or church, which seeks to draw people out of the broad currents into its backwater, but rather as American Marxists, we seek to join with others in advancing the existing struggles to a higher stage and on a broader front. We are convinced that out of these struggles and experiences, even before big mass forces take to the field, Left currents will arise with which we shall be able to cooperate and fuse; that the American Marxist tendency, as a stronger formation than at present, will thus be able to discharge its role as a left wing in the big movement-as part and parcel of the struggle to create the mass revolutionary party in the United States. That is our perspective.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Louis; Did you know Sidney Hook? I was one of his students in the 1950’s and found him to be brillant.His early work still remains as an outstanding contribution to Marxism. As the first U.S. Marxist philosopher, he could have been the leader of the Marxist philosophical movement in the U.S. Unfortunately, he let his hatred toward Stalin affect his thinking of the Soviet Union and eventually supported the Cold War. Another example of what could have been.

I am still a bit puzzled by Trotskyist conservatives. It seems that these people cannot get to grips much at all with the present and the future for some reason. They cultivate, cherish and glory in a tradition, reinterpreted in a way that feels comfortable. There were some rare old documents out of some kind of secret archive, which contained the true doctrine, and so on. In addition, there is the urge to constantly mimic Lenin and Trotsky. The whole thing has a quasi religious character.

I think it would be much more fruitful to inquire into the uses of tradition as such, and the uses to which traditions are actually put. Typically traditions are partly fact and partly myth. The myth gives the tradition its appeal, its shine. But it doesn’t really provide any real guidance about what to do in the present.

The rational kernel of regroupment is that if different groups unite, they are stronger than if they are on their own. But there is no profound analysis of why the groups exist separately in the first place, other than that they have different political positions on different political issues. And so, regroupment becomes a gimmick of people who lack a political method, and who have failed to discover any political success formula leading to a breakthrough in public support. The hope is, that if political differences are de-emphasized, and common positions are emphasized, that union can come about. Often the main reason why the separate groups exist is because they consist of sectarians, and to unite the sectarians becomes opportunist precisely because the sectarians necessarily have to compromise some of their principles, at least formally.

Most of the Trotskyist conservatives who talk regroupment are boring farts though. They have no political creativity or original ideas at all, but aim only to poach surplus labour from other people in the service of their own project. As Marx said, “be on your way, and let people chatter away as they will.”

Jim Cannon was not only a nasty sort of preacher, a sort of General Patton for the Trotskyist stormtroopers (which is why some Spartacists still like him). He was also profoundly doctrinaire, and did not know how to get along with people. His solution was to get blind drunk every month or so. The question then is, if you are looking for a good role model, why pick obscure, dubious characters from fifty years ago, that few people can really identify with anyway? Why not act in the spirit of the idea, rather than insist on publishing the letter?

The complex thing about Trotskyist conservatives is that they very consciously and deliberately do everything they can, to ensure that their own political project will fail. They are people who say e.g. “we have always been right, you are wrong, but it is only natural that the world does not agree with our very advanced thinking”. In reality, the thinking is mostly not very advanced at all, and often deeply reactionary and backward, if placed in the context of living reality.

It seems that in their youth, the Trotskyist conservatives fell in love with the great Marxist leaders, and then later they want to impart this love to the new generation. It’s a sacred, cherished idea, which must somehow undergo a transformation, so that the word may become flesh. They would be better of starting with the flesh, and abandon their eponymous doctrine in favour of the creativity of the living. But, alas, Trotskyist conservativism believes that the word is stronger than the flesh, and the last word… has already been written. The horizon of revolutionary theory has already been defined.

Thanks for this, and for your work over the years in making “Cochranite” articles available. For anyone whose background includes a stint in Trotskyism (as well as for others) Cochran’s “Our Orientation” is well worth reading.

The POT represented a traditionalist backlash against the SWP’s half-hearted efforts in the radical movements of the 60s, heavily influenced by the SWP’s right leaning sectarian opponents, whose ideological pedantry some well meaning, but at that point naive and sophomoric, intellectuals became enamored with. Yes, the bureaucratic measures taken against them were wrong, but in no way was the POT akin to Cochran, in fact if anything it was-in the conditions of 1971-an extreme caricature of the “Cannonism” Cochran fought against, folks who felt the SWP really needed to become more of the backwater Cochran belittled.

@Ed: Sidney Hook was a social patriot and a red-baiting snitch who became one of the principal, and most sophisticated, avatars of Cold War Liberalism who covered for McCarthy era witchhunt and as late the early 70s called for Angela Davis to be fired from her job while loudly supporting the Vietnam War.

Clifton Deberry didn’t join as the result of the SWP’s regroupment effort in the late 50s, he joined in 1953. Along with 1 other recruit that year, Earl Gilman, who is alive today in San Francisco. They recruited two members that year. No one was doing particularity well that year.

Peter was opposed to the way the turn was implemented for the same reason a lot of us in the SWP were. He was not alone nor was he the only spokesperson opposed to the *way* it was being implemented. In fact, Peter made the turn himself, going into garment (and recruiting few dozen latino youth working with him to the YSA). In this he was still for carrying out a line he generally opposed (though he spoke out of having YSA members go into the garment. He also opposed, correctly, the dissolving of our Healtcare Workers 1199 local as well one year previously along with about a 1/3 of the NYC membership).

The fact that the American Socialist Union despite the ‘great ideas of regroupment’ simply didn’t amount to much, It failed, it seems, to actually sniff out what was going on with students on America’s campuses in the late 1950s, something, not so oddly perhaps, their opponents in the YPSL and the Young Socialist League, the Shachtmanites, were quite keen on. Shortly there after, the YSA, itself actually a regroupment though one committed ot the idea Louis now rejects, was quite successful.

The ASU held a meeting in Chicago in 1956. They had 800 attending. What happened afterward? Of course any political mtg on the left in 1956 of that size is something to crow about. Clearly regroupment was something that did not result, however. I suspect the idea of it, in these incredibly demoralizing years, was a last gasp for many there. Interestingly, Louis is wrong about the ASU not recruiting, They did, quite aggressively, in one city: Chicago. Frank Freed, a living ex-members of the group and an organizer in the steel industry, told me they did quite well, resulting in the largest of branch of the ASU, with 35 members there, bigger than any group but the CP.

It seems that if the ASU had held out a bit longer, they could of been part of that’s 50s-end multiple regroupments that were taking place across the board as the repression eased a bit. Personally I’m glad the 60s cadre groups came into being. I doubt the political direction of the SWP in the Vietnam War would of been as positive for us and the rest of the world without them. Groups, parties, give far better response to ones political activism than being a lone lit match on a windy day. Maybe that won’t always be the case. But in my experience, it still seems that way.

I urge comrades to read the American Socialist. Along with The Militant and Labor Action (the later being the Independent Socialist League’s paper). I hope Louis completes his scanning. I have a full set if he needs any, at the Holt Labor Library.

I get tired of lots of the SWP history talk, but never of recovering Braverman, Cochrane, et al.The AS is easily one of the best Marxist journals produced, and just as valuable as a historic point of reference. I am interest in researching and writing an article on Reuben W. Borough, where would comrades suggest I look to for information?

In response to an essay I wrote for The Chronicle of Higher Education, titled South Africa, Anti-communism, and Value-Free Science, Sidney Hook said that he didn’t understand how a college could hire such an incompetent as I. I sent the essay and Hook’s letter to Alex Cockburn, who wrote back that Hook was such an ass. Whatever brilliance he had was long gone by the time he wrote that letter. A right wing apologist for murder is what he became. Perhaps he reflected the Manichean world view of most sectarians. Never any shades of grey.

By the early fifties it should have been clear to everyone that the new bi-polar arrangement and the capitalist boom had taken revolution at least in the imperialist heart lands completely off the agenda for some time to come. By then though the FI and the US SWP had degenerated under the impact of the post-War success of Stalinism and the economic boom into a disparate collection of centrist sects some of which zigged to the ultra-left and some of which capitulated to Stalinism or went the whole hog and became pro-imperialist. Slowly Gramscianism, the rending of Stalinism into the language of theory so that it appeares separate from the trough from which it emerged, replaced Trotsky as the Theorist of Cool.

The fifties, sixties and seventies shouild have been a time of theoretical clarification and development, of propaganda, of general labour movement building and keeping the flame alive. It is only now with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the various shocks since and the 2008 Collapse of Capitalism that we can talk of revolutionary situations in the imperialist heartlands again and can formulate a credible programme for the tranition to working class power and socialism.

FYI…if you want to see the *actual* debate between the Cochrane/Bartell grouping debate with the James P. Cannon wing of the SWP, the ETOL has, coincidentally, started digitizing this debate directly from the original copies of the Internal Bulletin of the SWP. All the bulletins are complete now through 1952. The first 2 (out of a total of 20!) in 1953 are now up. Go to:http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/swp-us/idb/swp-1946-59/index.htm and scroll down to 1953. These first 2 IBs actually contain the opening of the debate with Mike Bartell (Milton Zaslow) where he delivers a report(s) for the New York City local of the Party. While many trace back this debate to the issue of work in Detroit, the first conflicts didn’t develop there, but in NY. 2 down, 18 to go!

“. . . The American Guardian Monthly Review outfit, as far as I know … does not object to the general ideology of Stalinism on any important point. They are willing to endorse everything from the Moscow Trials to the Second World War and the pacifist ballyhoo for co-existence, if only they are allowed to do it as an independent party… The great bulk of these dissident Stalinists are worn-out people, incurably corrupted by Stalinist ideology, who haven’t the slightest intention or capacity to do anything but grumble at the official CP and to demand a stagnant little pond of their own to splash in. . .”

So how is Cannon wrong here? For most of its history the Guardian, even after the “new left” took over in the late ’60s and tossed the old guard, always advocated a sort of “kinder, gentler” Stalinism. But you seem to say that, because the Guardian had more readers than the Militant it was somehow “better.” Some argument.

He was wrong in viewing things through the prism of the 1930s. His hostility toward the Guardian was only matched by his spittle-flecked tirade against Isaac Deutscher. This is obviously a diseased mind at work:

The originator and fountainhead of the new revisionism, the modern successor to Bernstein and Stalin in this shady game, is a Polish former communist, named Isaac Deutscher, who passed through the outskirts of the Trotskyist movement on his way to citizenship in the British Empire.

The British bourgeoisie are widely publicizing his writings; and it is not far-fetched to say that their tactical attitude toward the Malenkov regime – somewhat different from that of Washington – is partly influenced by them. The British bourgeoisie are more desperate than their American counterparts, more conscious of the realities of the new world situation, and they feel the need of a more subtle theory than that of McCarthy and Dulles. The political thinkers of the British ruling class long ago abandoned any real hope for the return of former glories; to say nothing of a new expansion of their prosperity and power. Their maximum hope is to hang on, to preserve a part of their loot, and to put off and postpone their day of doom as long as possible. This determines their current short-term foreign policy.

Oh, I see, because he was wrong about Deutscher he was wrong about the Guardian?

—

Well, of course. He was a dead-end Stalinophobe. The divisions in the SWP date back to a UAW convention in 1947 when the fraction under Bert Cochran’s leadership voted to bloc with the CP because Reuther was introducing a loyalty oath. When Cannon got wind of this, he rushed down to Atlantic City and ordered them to back Reuther. Sol Dollinger states that the auto worker comrades were shocked by Cannon’s misreading of the political situation and his bureaucratic bluster.

So you know there is a LOT of politics behind this. ID opposed just about every step the Left Opposition took. Additionally, like Maurin in Spain and many others, he refused to call for political revolution. Cannon was over the top, but politics…? I don’t think so.

As I posted in response to Louis praise of the Guardian, a sentiment I definitely don’t share, the Guardian being a Maoist paper interested more in the vicissitudes of the cultural revolution groping a slow direction to pro-Soviet campism under it’s edit, Irvin Silbar. And…Louis, of course, takes as good coin Cochran’s wink and a nod toward the Stalinists, who would run the union into the ground, as they did in *every* union they ran with sub-standard contracts. I could see Cannon and the minority of the SWP fractions in the UAW somewhat aghast at the thought of voting for the current that represented pro-Stalin synchopantism and the no-strike pledge just two years earlier as a “msitake”.(ever union under CP leadership ended up with less job control and inferior contracts than their anti-communist counterparts in the AFL).

The whole point is missed in Louis’s anti-cannon myopia (we know get a ‘sick mind’) and tirades. If you want to ‘go back’ then you have to look not at this Convention of the UAW but the more interesting American Thesis, which was wrong, IMO, and what oriented, or disoriented the SWP (something every member of the future Cochran faction voted for against the opposition by Morrow and Goldman). I think the problem is NOT the UAW, per se (though Louis and Cannon might both agree here) but was the whole post-war analysis…and actions the SWP took.

On the contracts of the left-led unions, see the work of Maurice Zeitlin and Judith Stepan Norris. These debates about the SWP, the CP, who was a Stalinist, who was not, are, to my mind, absolutely irrelevant to 99.9 % of the world’s people. Those who continue to obsess about them should get help. How many tens of millions of words have been written, wasted efforts, along with the endless meetings, the stock and stupid phrases, making the same non points relentlessly, over and over again. Pure torture.

The SP stopped running presidential candidates after 1956 , when its nominee Darlington Hoopes won fewer than 6,000 votes. In the party’s last decades, its members, many of them prominent in the labor, peace, civil rights and civil liberties movements, fundamentally disagreed about the socialist movement’s relationship to the labor movement and Democratic Party in the U.S., and about how best to advance democracy abroad. In 1970–1973, these strategic differences had become so acute that the Socialist Party changed its name to Social Democrats, USA and leaders of two of its caucuses formed separate socialist organizations, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the Socialist Party USA .

Say what you will about obscurantist politics & their contemporary irrelevance (a view I’m sympathetic to) but my reading of Lenin, that’s every single page of every single volume of his Collected Works at the University of Arizona library over 2 years while I had a 4 hr. shift 5 nights a week as an honor role undergrad in the late 80’s while supposedly policing tobacco chewers, spitters & food smugglers that weren’t welcome due to the scourge of 4 inch long albino flying sewer roaches that would allegedly breed through the duct work and devour the glue out of bookbindings — the little splits & details of every aspect of them in every offshoot of the socialist movement, particularly their minutiae, studying & learning from them, were in Lenin’s view the keys to victory for his consolidating Bolshevik power in October 1917. He in fact believed that studying every detail of those isolated & seemingly irrelevant differences was of vital importance for the future of the working class.

Speaking of tobacco chewers, on Lincoln Ave. Chicago Near DePaul U., there’s a great old sub joint called “Potbelly Sandwich Works” that had a majestic old working potbelly stove in the middle of the restuarant and at the foot of it was a great old nickle plated sign that read: “Smokers & Chewers will please spit on each other & not on the floor or stove.”

To the extent Proyect dredges up these long toothed old canards is therefore not necessarily a waste of time, but it certainly could be, as one thing’s for sure, the movement to come from the wake of OWS don’t give a damn about those fickle old fights as they’ve got way bigger fish to fry.

Yet I still can’t help think about Lenin’s axiom that within the subtleties of those old splits lies great wisdom as after all, the definition of Marxism is essentially just “the history of the working class”.

Karl, points taken. I didn’t address my comments to Louis, but to those who argue with him about matters long dead and useless today. I agree that we need what the Maoists in Nepal call a political-economic geography, which gives you the real lay of the land and points out pressure points most amenable to struggle and victories. John Womack has done some great work on this, though I don’t think it is published.

Weiss’s article concludes with praise heaped on Gerry Healy’s Socialist Labor League. In a couple of years Cannon and Healy would be at each others’ throats. Who reads the SWP’s magazine from the 1950s, I wonder. Despite Weiss’s venom, the American Socialist has a lot more to offer starting with Harry Braverman’s articles. People can judge for themselves. Here’s the American Socialist archives I put together (there are plans afoot to put the entire contents online):

Michael Burns, Farmers in Trouble
W.E.B. DuBois, If Eugene Debs Returned
Harry Braverman, Big Business Moves in on The Farmer
Conrad Lynn, The Southern Negro Stirs
W.E.B. DuBois, Negro Voters Face 1956
Harry Braverman, Which Way to a New American Radicalism

Yes, well I knew you’d bring up the SLL rather than addressing the political points Weiss makes. It’s worth noting that Healy’s group really was the biggest group to the left of the Labour Party at the time, whereas Cochran’s little clot had dwindled away to nothingness

I find the articles equally in both journals interesting. I find the general news internationally far superior in FI and ISR but that’s because of the international connections via the FI the SWP maintained. And course the journal, ISR, got way more interesting in 1960 onward with the coverage of the new radicalization. The one off article in AS (excellent, BTW) by Conrad Lynn I think pales when looking at the complete coverage of the Civil Rights and Negro Struggle in FI and ISR during this period written by George Breitman. And, IMHO, some of Bravermans stuff is a big schnorr as well. So, do what Louis suggests and read both, you won’t be disappointed. And, not leave any one out, but read New International, Shachtman’s journal edited by Hal Draper to round the 1950s out a bit. Here: https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/issue3.htm

On Healy…I get why he supported Healy, and in the 1950s that made all the sense in world…especially as compared to what else was out there in the UK at the time. However, this ‘error’, goes back to 1945 and before, which is why I keep saying one has to really look at the war years and start with Cochran’s unfortunate departure and road to oblivion.